Scientists move Doomsday Clock ahead to 2 minutes to midnight(cbc.ca)
cbc.ca
Scientists move Doomsday Clock ahead to 2 minutes to midnight
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/doomsday-clock-2018-1.4502382
74 comments
It's depressing to see adults participate in such a stupid publicity stunt. Their silly clock was at 7 minutes to midnight during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Does anyone think we're in a more dangerous moment now than we were then?
But it sure can help their "political" friends to show the clock and argue that the end is near. If you say, this shit is stunt, you will be labeled anti-science because they moved the clock in lab coats.
> Does anyone think we're in a more dangerous moment now than we were then?
Yes. Then, we had world leaders whose philosophies and policies almost led to war, but who personally didn't really want to go there. Now we have a couple world leaders who don't seem to grasp the significance of their fights, and are just driving their decisions with their own egos.
Yes. Then, we had world leaders whose philosophies and policies almost led to war, but who personally didn't really want to go there. Now we have a couple world leaders who don't seem to grasp the significance of their fights, and are just driving their decisions with their own egos.
“A statesman is a politician who’s been dead ten or fifteen years.” - Harry S. Truman
This "warmongering" was the rationale for advancing the clock dramatically under Reagan, but Reagan's policies led to the collapse of the soviet union, so two years after Reagan's term, the clock was moved to its safest ever levels (17 minutes to midnight).
https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/the-doomsday-c...
This "warmongering" was the rationale for advancing the clock dramatically under Reagan, but Reagan's policies led to the collapse of the soviet union, so two years after Reagan's term, the clock was moved to its safest ever levels (17 minutes to midnight).
https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/the-doomsday-c...
Publicly. I highly doubt either of the two leaders you are thinking about really believe nuclear war is an actual option. Mutual assured destruction is still a thing.
Regarding the saber rattling from current POTUS, stating our nuclear arsenal is the most powerful in the world is a non-statement. It changes nothing other than public perception of his political position. It doesn't reduce or increase the power he wields nor does it reduce or increase the power held by NK.
Regarding the saber rattling from current POTUS, stating our nuclear arsenal is the most powerful in the world is a non-statement. It changes nothing other than public perception of his political position. It doesn't reduce or increase the power he wields nor does it reduce or increase the power held by NK.
There's no mutually assured destruction between the US and NK. The US can destroy NK, but NK cannot annihilate the US, even if it can severely damage many of its urban centers.
>I highly doubt either of the two leaders you are thinking about really believe nuclear war is an actual option.
...ummm....
"North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the “Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times.” Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!"
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 2, 2018
...ummm....
"North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the “Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times.” Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!"
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 2, 2018
Maybe that was the conventional wisdom at the time. Later we found out that wasn’t as true as we would hope.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CtUfBc4qQMg
The movie this clip is from and the companion book are much more detailed about the realities of the time and the though processes of those world leaders.
CIA says Kim Jong Un is still a rational actor.
He may well be, but consider three things. One, what is the chance that North Korea might undergo a political crisis, precipitated by either internal or external events during his lifetime? Secondly, is there anything he would not do or threaten to do in order to avert that? Finally, to our knowledge there have been several technical errors or accidents that came close to detonating or launching nuclear weapons, both in the US and in Russia. What are the chances that North Korea's technical and procedural controls are better than both, and does his behaviour increase or decrease the associated risks?
I'd say no one knows and that's kind of what really makes the clock ridiculous. It's a symbolic representation of one group of people's guess at an unknowable.
Not only that, the metaphor doesn't make sense. If we were at 2 minutes to midnight 1953, either we're dead now or the clock doesn't work like a clock. It should be the doomsday pressure gauge.
+1.
Weirdly, I don't remember The Doomsday Clock being advanced like this during the last decade, when North Korea was furiously and successfully building its store of warheads. That was evidently a time of perfect pacificity.
Weirdly, I don't remember The Doomsday Clock being advanced like this during the last decade, when North Korea was furiously and successfully building its store of warheads. That was evidently a time of perfect pacificity.
There is a saying in English, It takes two to tango. Perhaps the change reflects the arrival of the dance partner.
Also of concern is the new Russian coastal city killer drone submarines and their new generation of hypersonic reentry ICBMs. It is clear evidence that they do not wish to accept a world where the largest military power has anti missile technology capable of diminishing the effectiveness of the Russian offensive nuclear capability.
Also of concern is the new Russian coastal city killer drone submarines and their new generation of hypersonic reentry ICBMs. It is clear evidence that they do not wish to accept a world where the largest military power has anti missile technology capable of diminishing the effectiveness of the Russian offensive nuclear capability.
I wouldn't agree with moving it ahead as much as 30 seconds for North Korea. NK resulting in a doomsday scenario (which is different to mass casualties) requires a substantial chain of unfortunate events after the two idiots push their buttons.
A nuclear arsenal isn't the only deterrent between US and Russia. Both countries have decades of experience with nuclear defense. NK is relatively (or possibly absolutely) defenseless. While there would be enormous casualties (which is horrific and sad but is not doomsday), the fight would be extremely one-sided. Nobody else, including Putin, wants to get involved in a global nuclear catastrophe. At worst, US would be slapped with consequences six-ways-from-Sunday: think Germany after WW2. With a sane president, US wouldn't even have to use nukes to quash NK and, you never know, someone might actually calm the president if that time comes.
However, there is always a possibility - a nuke is sabotaged and lands in Russia, or something.
A nuclear arsenal isn't the only deterrent between US and Russia. Both countries have decades of experience with nuclear defense. NK is relatively (or possibly absolutely) defenseless. While there would be enormous casualties (which is horrific and sad but is not doomsday), the fight would be extremely one-sided. Nobody else, including Putin, wants to get involved in a global nuclear catastrophe. At worst, US would be slapped with consequences six-ways-from-Sunday: think Germany after WW2. With a sane president, US wouldn't even have to use nukes to quash NK and, you never know, someone might actually calm the president if that time comes.
However, there is always a possibility - a nuke is sabotaged and lands in Russia, or something.
I do! The world did not erupt into nuke Armageddon in the 1960s because at the end of the day cooler heads prevailed and wound up doing nothing. Inaction saved the day.
In contrast, inaction is now precisely what will doom us.
In contrast, inaction is now precisely what will doom us.
Even worse, it made it to the front page of HN.
Maybe if they could say something like "until recently we over-estimated how close we were, but now we are approximately how close we previously thought we were" they could better emphasize problems by being able to correct recent hyperbole, and this could maybe help address the inconsistency you mention?
Stories like this are the reason that I think that the following headline format is rightly banned from HN in the future:
"Scientists <verb>."
Nobody cares that "scientists" did something. We care about the science of what they did, sure. But this is a built-in appeal to authority that seems completely anti-hacker to me.
"Scientists <verb>."
Nobody cares that "scientists" did something. We care about the science of what they did, sure. But this is a built-in appeal to authority that seems completely anti-hacker to me.
The doomsday clock is somewhat silly, but I disagree in general. I think "appeal to authority" fallacy is misunderstood. How is it illogical to listen to qualified authorities? It only breaks when one uses authority in one field to claim credibility in something else.
But that's exactly the situation here. The scientists' authority is not in fields related to international relations, or to arms control theory, or to game theory applied to military escalation.
What makes "scientists" somehow especially qualified to opine on military and national security matters?
For making the actual bombs, yes, you need scientists and engineers, but the use (or likelihood of use) of the bombs is not a scientific issue.
> It only breaks when one uses authority in one field to claim credibility in something else.
Which is exactly what they're doing.
For making the actual bombs, yes, you need scientists and engineers, but the use (or likelihood of use) of the bombs is not a scientific issue.
> It only breaks when one uses authority in one field to claim credibility in something else.
Which is exactly what they're doing.
I didn't mean to suggest that it's illogical to listen to qualified authorities.
I don't think that qualified authorities need to be introduced with "scientists <verb>."
I don't think that qualified authorities need to be introduced with "scientists <verb>."
surely 'failing to appeal to authority' would be anti-hacker, any elegantly hacked solution would appeal to authority while simultaneously undertaking pro-hacker activity in order to legitimise and make maximum impact with your actions, I would rather consider these scientists who have taken their time to bring something important to our attention as media hackers, and the fact we are discussing them tells me their fu is prime.
"I would only agree that a symbolic clock is as nourishing to the intellect as a photo of oxygen is to a drowning man"
The best part of this submission is definitely the pithy comments.
It was always little more than a political statement made by scientists using their scientific respect in non-scientific contexts, a major negative. But they had some justification; the Cold War threat was that the two major superpowers would fling thousands upon thousands of highly-destructive warheads at each other, and anything that might conceivably be valuable in one of their proxies, which meant every major city in the world, quite a chunk of the merely medium-sized ones, and a whole whackload of "militarily-valuable targets" all over the place.
Let's be frank; if North Korea simply goes insane and launches everything it could conceivably have 5 years from now, it wouldn't even remotely resemble that outcome. At a civilizational scale, the millions of deaths, the square miles of uninhabitable land, the major disruption to international trade and unknowable potential changes in the international political landscape would still be a civilizational inconvenience, not the end of civilization. Even if it literally precipitated World War Three somehow, it would very likely still not even remotely reach the outcome that the doomsday clock was originally created to warn against. The Cold War legitimately threatened civilization as a whole, with a distinct possibility of human extinction.
To advance the clock in 2018 "because North Korea" is, in a sort of ironic backfiring way, an admission of just how far we have in fact come since the clock was started, because back in the 60s or 70s, the thought of advancing the clock because of this level of sabre rattling wouldn't have even crossed anyone's mind. This would just be Tuesday in the Cold War world.
(Similarly, advancing the clock because of "climate change" is another admission that the world has gotten much safer since the Cold War. "In 50-100 years, things might get civilizationally-inconvenient" is not the same threat as "Tomorrow, the human race may be on an irreversible course to extinction.")
Let's be frank; if North Korea simply goes insane and launches everything it could conceivably have 5 years from now, it wouldn't even remotely resemble that outcome. At a civilizational scale, the millions of deaths, the square miles of uninhabitable land, the major disruption to international trade and unknowable potential changes in the international political landscape would still be a civilizational inconvenience, not the end of civilization. Even if it literally precipitated World War Three somehow, it would very likely still not even remotely reach the outcome that the doomsday clock was originally created to warn against. The Cold War legitimately threatened civilization as a whole, with a distinct possibility of human extinction.
To advance the clock in 2018 "because North Korea" is, in a sort of ironic backfiring way, an admission of just how far we have in fact come since the clock was started, because back in the 60s or 70s, the thought of advancing the clock because of this level of sabre rattling wouldn't have even crossed anyone's mind. This would just be Tuesday in the Cold War world.
(Similarly, advancing the clock because of "climate change" is another admission that the world has gotten much safer since the Cold War. "In 50-100 years, things might get civilizationally-inconvenient" is not the same threat as "Tomorrow, the human race may be on an irreversible course to extinction.")
> if North Korea simply goes insane and launches everything it could conceivably have 5 years from now, it wouldn't even remotely resemble that outcome
As it turned out, the First World War was not fought between Serbia and the Austro-Hungarian royalty, nor was the Second World War fought between Germany and Poland.
> Even if it literally precipitated World War Three somehow, it would very likely still not even remotely reach the outcome
There are things happening today that are more dangerous than the Cold War. You just don't know about them yet.
As it turned out, the First World War was not fought between Serbia and the Austro-Hungarian royalty, nor was the Second World War fought between Germany and Poland.
> Even if it literally precipitated World War Three somehow, it would very likely still not even remotely reach the outcome
There are things happening today that are more dangerous than the Cold War. You just don't know about them yet.
"There are things happening today that are more dangerous than the Cold War. You just don't know about them yet."
That is not a defense for the scientists moving the clock. That's not what the scientists were claiming. They claim they're moving the clock for North Korea and Climate Change, not biological warfare (with or without a soupcon of genetic engineering), the immanent victory of the New World Order, the immantization of the eschaton, or whatever else you're referring to. The stated reasons are showboating, compared even to the known dangers of the Cold War.
That is not a defense for the scientists moving the clock. That's not what the scientists were claiming. They claim they're moving the clock for North Korea and Climate Change, not biological warfare (with or without a soupcon of genetic engineering), the immanent victory of the New World Order, the immantization of the eschaton, or whatever else you're referring to. The stated reasons are showboating, compared even to the known dangers of the Cold War.
Arthur C Clarke's short story "The Last Command" is a fun, relevant read (it's like 3 pages long, but DON'T google it because you'll have the ending spoiled and there are no free copies online).
Try a library?
Try a library?
Yep, reading the HN comments on this one is surreal. I'd like to believe people are posturing and trying to convince themselves there's nothing to worry about, but I'm afraid that they're actually not worried. Reminds me of a comment [1] that I read the other day:
My generation has not grown to fear the bombs as the previous generation did. When someone of my generation is behind the buttons, I wonder if somewhere in the back of their minds there isn't a part of them that says 'perhaps in this and this situation it'd be okay to press the big red button?'.
I think the horror that war/these weapons cause will slowly drift from collective memory in mainstream western society. The warnings of the previous generation will be an endorsement of the destructive power of these weapons, instead of a deterrent of their usage.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16206823
My generation has not grown to fear the bombs as the previous generation did. When someone of my generation is behind the buttons, I wonder if somewhere in the back of their minds there isn't a part of them that says 'perhaps in this and this situation it'd be okay to press the big red button?'.
I think the horror that war/these weapons cause will slowly drift from collective memory in mainstream western society. The warnings of the previous generation will be an endorsement of the destructive power of these weapons, instead of a deterrent of their usage.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16206823
There's some of that, but there's also what I think are very valid points about this being almost entirely an appeal to emotion with very little information imparted. Are we actually 20% more likely to have a nuclear war? Who decides this, and is it based on data, or their own emotional state?
Is this just a way for some people to broadcast their current level of fear that's caught on with the wider public?
Is this just a way for some people to broadcast their current level of fear that's caught on with the wider public?
A clock is such a terrible metaphor. It only moves forward. And it moves forward despite any actions humans take. If anything, it is slightly better suited for climate change.
What they should be doing is providing a confidence level of nuclear war, eg 3±2% chance of nuclear war in 2018.
Furthermore, conflating nuclear apocalypse with other existential threats to humanity (climate change, disease, asteroid, gamma ray burst, vacuum decay, etc.) is at best confusing. I guess a general "5% chance irrevocable extinction event begins in 2018" would have some value, it would be far better to report on individual extinction vectors so we can prioritize countermeasures.
What they should be doing is providing a confidence level of nuclear war, eg 3±2% chance of nuclear war in 2018.
Furthermore, conflating nuclear apocalypse with other existential threats to humanity (climate change, disease, asteroid, gamma ray burst, vacuum decay, etc.) is at best confusing. I guess a general "5% chance irrevocable extinction event begins in 2018" would have some value, it would be far better to report on individual extinction vectors so we can prioritize countermeasures.
They've actually moved it backward several times:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock#/media/File:Doo...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock#/media/File:Doo...
Yeah I know (thanks for the link). I mean using a clock as the way to communicate how likely nuclear war is happens to be a terrible way of communicating to a public that knows clocks only, and naturally, move forward. Having seen a clock and reading this news, it would be reasonable for children to expect us to reach nuclear war very soon, which is not at all accurate.
It's pretty accurate. Presidents of two countries have been declaring that they will use nuclear weapons against the other. They have been provoking each other, and each interprets the provocation as an act of war. It's pretty bad. The only reason no one is reacting is because there's nothing we can do. Might as well live your life while there's still time, and hope rationality will win out.
The reason people aren't reacting is because they don't believe the bluster, not because they're resigned to a slow death in an inevitable nuclear winter.
If the US military seriously thought the North Koreans were about to nuke an ally, it'd pre-empt that with conventional and/or nuclear means. And if POTUS were serious about nuking another country, I don't think he'd last long in office, let alone manage to carry out the act.
I'd be happy to bet as much money as I can muster as an indication of my confidence in our continued existence. Any takers? :P
If the US military seriously thought the North Koreans were about to nuke an ally, it'd pre-empt that with conventional and/or nuclear means. And if POTUS were serious about nuking another country, I don't think he'd last long in office, let alone manage to carry out the act.
I'd be happy to bet as much money as I can muster as an indication of my confidence in our continued existence. Any takers? :P
Sure. I'll bet you one million dollars that we're all going to die. Zimbabwe dollars, of course.
>The group also cited concerns over public distrust of political leaders and the media, saying it is drawing away from the focus on real threats.
So... depending on how they meant to word that, are they seriously wagging their finger at the public for not blindly falling in line behind this unprecedented, petty shit-show? That's an impressive amount of hubris.
So... depending on how they meant to word that, are they seriously wagging their finger at the public for not blindly falling in line behind this unprecedented, petty shit-show? That's an impressive amount of hubris.
No, I believe they are trying to say that rule of law is breaking down, and the fabric of our society is at stake.
It still sounds as though they accuse the public for this, though. I can't abide that.
Well, it is the public who elected the leaders, the public who chooses the advice of biased talking heads while disregarding those with legitimate domain expertise, and the public that is unwilling to engage in real debate between factions and engage in independent critical thought. So yes, it is the public's fault.
I agree, but only so far. There is also the enormous amount of corruption that keeps these political machines opaque and inaccessable to the public, by design.
My point isn't that we are blameless, but that this has been forced upon us in varying degrees. Our options each election year are purposefully limited, and no matter the campaign promise, we get the same results each time--and those are the officials we have a modicum of control over through elections.
We're responsible for fixing it, but distrust in the system is an integral part of fixing it.
My point isn't that we are blameless, but that this has been forced upon us in varying degrees. Our options each election year are purposefully limited, and no matter the campaign promise, we get the same results each time--and those are the officials we have a modicum of control over through elections.
We're responsible for fixing it, but distrust in the system is an integral part of fixing it.
On a completely unrelated, but way less scary note....
"Doomsday Clock #3" is out today from D.C. comics.
It's a mega event that crosses characters from Alan Moore's The Watchmen with more traditional D.C. characters like Batman and Superman. I'm enjoying it quite a bit even though its exploitative and somewhat tarnishes the legacy of the greatest comic book of all time.
"Doomsday Clock #3" is out today from D.C. comics.
It's a mega event that crosses characters from Alan Moore's The Watchmen with more traditional D.C. characters like Batman and Superman. I'm enjoying it quite a bit even though its exploitative and somewhat tarnishes the legacy of the greatest comic book of all time.
Coincidence?
Or clever marketing? #FollowTheMoney (just kidding)
Or clever marketing? #FollowTheMoney (just kidding)
These "intellectuals" complain and have these elaborate demonstrations about a destabilizing world all the while doing everything they can to create FUD and usher in that world.
The Ig Nobel Prize people really should honor this group.
One top-level comment is sufficient on HN. It takes a certain amount of hubris, or blithe ignorance, to post multiple top-level comments.
Sorry - It was ignorance.
The Doomsday Clock is the Advent Candle of Scientism.
...and taxpayer funded Grants are the selling of "religious indulgences". Each $10M we provide, they agree to move the clock back 30 seconds.
I feel like this clock has been asymptotically reaching midnight now for the last several decades and will do so for at least several more decades if not longer. In other words, it's about as accurate as predictions of the second coming of Jesus Christ.
2 minutes to midnight in 2018:
"The world has seen the threat posed by the misuse of information technology and witnessed the vulnerability of democracies to disinformation."
2 minutes to midnight in 1953:
"from Moscow to Chicago, atomic explosions will strike midnight for Western civilization."
https://thebulletin.org/timeline
Are they being secretly ironic, giving an example of "fake news"? (To be fair, the longer statement is more detailed than their summary.)
"The world has seen the threat posed by the misuse of information technology and witnessed the vulnerability of democracies to disinformation."
2 minutes to midnight in 1953:
"from Moscow to Chicago, atomic explosions will strike midnight for Western civilization."
https://thebulletin.org/timeline
Are they being secretly ironic, giving an example of "fake news"? (To be fair, the longer statement is more detailed than their summary.)
For a 'fun' exercise, the NUKEMAP is illustrative on the effects of these horrific devices. Try dropping various payloads on your location to have a peek at what is at stake.
To note:
NK's latest public test would kill ~33 mi^2. Not a lot of fun.
The US's Castle Bravo kills ~1,400 mi^2, most of the DMV region.
The USSR's Tzar Bomba kills ~6,600 mi^2, nearly the entire LA basin.
http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
Pro-tip: The button sizes don't matter
To note:
NK's latest public test would kill ~33 mi^2. Not a lot of fun.
The US's Castle Bravo kills ~1,400 mi^2, most of the DMV region.
The USSR's Tzar Bomba kills ~6,600 mi^2, nearly the entire LA basin.
http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
Pro-tip: The button sizes don't matter
I wonder if the Doomsday clock correlates at all with the sales of EMP-proof bags. (I also wonder if EMP-proof bags actually provide any non-trivial level of EMP protection.)
You mean like those metallic pouches sold by Amazon? I got one to keep my car keys at night in, since it completely stops the keyless go system from working and protects them from a relay attack and car theft.
This is pathetic. It's not even a "doomsday" clock, it's a "a couple of random countries go to nuclear war with each other while the rest of civilisation watches and cleans up after they're done" clock.
Sure, it'd be remembered in history books forever and up to hundreds of millions would die but this wouldn't even register on a "doomsday" scale.
Sure, it'd be remembered in history books forever and up to hundreds of millions would die but this wouldn't even register on a "doomsday" scale.
Every country would see significant death totals from a very
large scale nuclear exchange. 50-100 nukes would as you say be far less significant, but do 100x that and you get more worldwide impact.
The thing is, there isn't going to be any large scale nuclear exchange. For one, North Koreans don't have that many bombs. On the other side, it wouldn't take that many bombs to glass the entire country of North Korea.
During the Cold War, by contrast, the Soviet Union had approximately ~48,000 warheads.
During the Cold War, by contrast, the Soviet Union had approximately ~48,000 warheads.
The Mayans applaud the efforts of these scientists.
How many minutes have to remain before we take drastic action to stop the nuclear sable rattling, and ignorance to the climate???
Does it ever move back? I mean, I've read this same article a half dozen times over the past 20 years or so and I keep wondering what kind of clock it is that is perpetually 5 mins. to midnight but can move two minutes forward all the time and yet NEVER REACH FREAKING MIDNIGHT?
It's Zeno's doomsday clock. (It doesn't make the news when they move it back, because it's harder to take political advantage of baseless reassurance than baseless fear.)
Yes, the clock has been moved back several times.
There's a nice graph on Wikipedia that provides a nice overview that is worth taking a look at:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock#/media/File%3...
[edit: usage/grammar]
There's a nice graph on Wikipedia that provides a nice overview that is worth taking a look at:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock#/media/File%3...
[edit: usage/grammar]
Aye carumba the comments on this article are a cesspool.
If you don’t think the way Trump and Kim Jong Un have been interacting is a reason for concern I don’t even know what to say to you.
And the point of this isn’t to make people panic, it’s to point out how dangerous of a situation we are in and maybe get people to think about it and change course in some way.
If you don’t think the way Trump and Kim Jong Un have been interacting is a reason for concern I don’t even know what to say to you.
And the point of this isn’t to make people panic, it’s to point out how dangerous of a situation we are in and maybe get people to think about it and change course in some way.
I don't think that angry Twitter comments are a sure sign of impending nuclear war. We'll become wary when there are border skirmishes and killing of diplomats.
If it were not for nukes, the people moving the clock would be drafted and clock materials used to build a cannon in world war 5.
So much for percived danger and actuall danger.
So much for percived danger and actuall danger.